User Reviews

One More Shot is directed by James Nunn and stars Scott Adkins, Michael Jai White, Alexis Knapp and Tom Berenger.

Scott Adkins is back with an American accent for a sequel to his 2021 movie One Shot. Taking place directly after the events of the first film Navy SEAL Jake Harris (Adkins) is ordered to escort terrorist suspect Armin Mansur to Washington D. C for interrogation.

I think Writer/Director James Nunn should be applauded for pulling off something so ambitious without it ever feeling gimmicky (the use of vertical space is impressive), especially on what must be a small budget, but the film never quite makes a case for it being one fake take beyond "Hey! That sounds cool." (which, if it gets the project funded, is good enough, I guess!). These One Shot movies to me are somewhat comparable to Chris Hemsworth's Extraction movies on Netflix and that's definitely a compliment considering those movies have a Netflix budget behind them.

The story here is also way more ambitious than the 2021 original, but a pace killing torture scene and an anti climactic ending hold this back. There's also not enough Michael Jai White here. All his scenes come across like they were shot in a day and he only shares one scene with Adkins at the very end. Also as much as these movies look and feel like video games I'm pretty sure the intention also isn't to have your lead character come off like he's ripped out of a video game as well. It would be nice to give Adkins some type of emotional depth to work with in the inevitable third movie just to make the character feel more human.

Either way, sign me up for ONE LAST SHOT or whatever the next one is.

"One More Shot" is a thrilling action-adventure that takes viewers on a wild ride from start to finish. The film follows the story of a group of highly skilled mercenaries as they attempt to pull off an impossible mission, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.

Directed by James Nunn, "One More Shot" boasts an impressive cast, including Scott Adkins, Michael Jai White, and Alexis Knapp. The chemistry between the actors is palpable, and their performances are nothing short of outstanding. The film's action sequences are intense, well-choreographed, and keep viewers on the edge of their seats.

The plot of "One More Shot" is engaging and fast-paced, with twists and turns that keep the audience engaged. The film's pacing is excellent, and the story isn't relevant, this is just all about guns, guns and fist fights. The characters are satisfactorily developed and the acting is just about good enough to carry the movie.

The film's visuals are good, and the action scenes are beautifully shot. The film's score, composed by Austin Wintory, is also noteworthy, as it perfectly complements the film's tone and enhances the overall viewing experience.

Despite having a low budget flix feel, "One More Shot" manages to deliver an action-packed adventure that exceeds expectations. The film's strong fight scenes make it a must-see for fans of the action-adventure genre.

In conclusion, "One More Shot" is a thrilling and engaging film that delivers really good gunfight and fight scenes. If you like action movies then give this one a go.

ONE MORE SHOT is a weaker and cheaper sequel to the first movie that never quite manages to reach the highs of its predecessor. The problem with this one is that it's obviously much cheaper and thus the action, although plentiful, is far sloppier than what we've seen in the original. Adkins still proves himself in the action stakes as you'd expect, but the bland, JOHN WICK style shoot-outs just don't have the same oomph as we saw before. The most interesting thing about this one is that it was shot entirely in and around Stansted Airport, which allows for a good use of space and setting. Michael Jai White is criminally wasted as the bad guy.

I've seen bad acting in action flicks, in fact I expect it, but this movie takes the cake. The award for worst actor goes to Alexis Knapp. She sounds like Meg from Family Guy, not credible for a villain, over the top acting on scenes that don't require it, and too robotic on scenes that require more emotion. Scott Adkins is his usual bad, but you watch his movies to see his kicks and aerial moves, not to nominate him for an acting award. On that note, don't expect to see anything spectacular. Instead, they replaced the kung fu with "gun fu" closer to a John Wick movie. Understandable since Adkins is getting up there in years. You can't expect to see him doing the same stunts forever. Finally, I wish Michael Jai White and Tom Betenguer had more onscreen time. They are way underutilized.

Not bad for an action flick. I had no idea this was a sequel. I never even heard of the 1st one. I dont think it can become a triology because everything might have been resolved. I know have to go and watch the first one so I can tie them into each other. Scott Adkins can carry an action film with his fight choreography and moves. He seems to be trained well enough when it comes to fighting and weapons handling. Michael Jai White is a good action star as well and can always add more to the picture. He has great skills as well. I appreciate a good action movie and this one gets a pass from me.

What made 2021 "One Shot" stand out was its concept. To my knowledge very few movies actually done this. Sometimes you get long amazing sequences but not a whole movie. So i think that concept kinda carried the first movie.

So obviously this movie follow the same pattern and pick up very close to where the first one ended. But altough you can clearly apreciate the effort and the filmaking behind everything just as the first, its not as new anymore.

That said once again the team behind the cameras really made it work. The cuts are well hidden. Maybe a filmaker would notice them but me, an average movie fan, watching this with a few beers, i couldn't. So on that side the movie does work great.

But behind the concept itself, you have a very average plot. Pretty much "Die Hard in ...add location" as so many movies have done before. One lone soldier picking terrorists one by one to achieve a goal. That said its perfectly servicable.

Now where i am thorn is in the concept of the movie versus the action itself. The action looks great on a point of view of thinking it was done surely with minimal takes and having to coordinate all of this. We all seen Jackie Chan bloopers and how many takes he usually needed to nail his crazy stunts. So when i compare what they done here and HOW they done it, i think its pretty good. BUT... If you compare the fight scenes to other Scott Adkins movies, its nowhere on the same level.

When it comes to gun fights, again its very decent but maybe its due to the fact most guns had silencers attached to them, the sound effects felt a bit off to me. Obviously comparing them to John Wick or Extraction would be unfair, due to the nature of the movie, but i feel some scenes worked great while others felt a bit flat.

I was pretty exited to see Michael Jai White in this movie. I had no idea who he was gonna play as i didn't watch any trailer. Sadly his screen time is VERY minimal and compare to their previous work together (Scott and Michael), its their less exiting collaboration for me when it comes to them interacting.

Now the big 2 questions. Did i had fun and do i want "Another Shot" (my homemade title for a triquel). Answer is yes and "yeah but...".

I would rather have Scott do another Accident Man or especially another Boyka way before another sequel to this franchise. And quite honestly i feel by a third movie the novelty concept will have fade off even more. Sadly its kinda the whole point of this franchise so if they don't do it the same way, then why do it at all?

Bottom line, if they make a third one, i will surely watch it, but i won't be insanely exited for it. As a Scott Adkins fan i try to watch pretty much everything he star in anyway. Im gonna give the movie a 7 out of 10 on IMDB (3.5 Stars on Letterboxd) because it did entertain me and i can surely apreciate the effort put behind it.

When I tell you this movie sucks, I can't say it enough.

Michael and Scott only good actors in the mistake of a movie, one guy has so much Botox and u can't tell if he's actually speaking or not. I'm actually pretty sure he's lip syncing because it looks so bad.

The pregnant wife has got to be the worst actor same with terroist, the way they run, move, facial expressions. Everything is absolutely terrible.

Wife in a life or death situation can't stay quite when needed to because she screams when someone gets shot (lazy writing) Such a disappointment honestly. Like seriously disappointing.

And I feel bad for Scott because he's a good actor, he was amazing in John wick 4 but he's given terrible director, even worse martial arts choreographer and it comes out looking like an 17 year old picked up a phone and started filming.

The gun sounds don't sound real, the so called "professional military personnel" don't know basic combat maneuverers or how to stack. Like I'm telling you now, it's probably the worst movie Iv watched in a long time.

However if you want to get high and binge eat some food it could be okay since ur not actually focused on the cinematography behind it and more just the dim witted fighting.

Basically don't waste ur time on this garbage movie unless ur high.....

Solid 7. Movie has very little dead spots. The action and plot move along at a steady clip.

The plot is one you have seen countless times. Terrorists with dirty bomb want revenge on USA. Reminds me of Die hard 2. Like that classic, almost the entire movie takes place in an airport. Was filmed in just 4 weeks.

Choreagraphy is spot on, the action scenes are almost always believable.

Was shot on a budget but used what they had very well. Acting was really good.

The plot gets convuluted towards the last act and the ending sets up a part 2.

Some modern day topics such as middle eastern terrorism wanting revenge on the USA is used but jsut keep watching. Do not want to spoil anything. Movie is not as simplistic as it sounds. It i s NOT racial profiling or typecasing.

Unlike a lot of old time action stars that are cranking out action movies while using a walker, Adkins can still manage to look good and be believable as a bad ass.

Even by Scott Adkins usual low standards this one is appalling. A ludicrous plot, wooden acting from everyone unfortunate to be involved in this rubbish, and the use of hand held cameras all combine to make this tosh almost unwatchable. A one star is a gross over statement. Isn't it about time for Scott to take a break from churning out this infantile trash and try his hand at something more adult even if he needs to perform so many tough guy fight sequences. The Bourne films showed us that you can combine action with a good story and reasonable acting. Let's hope Scott can find a better use for his talents in the future.

First off, I liked this sequel more than One Shot. I liked the setting in an American airport more than a military base in Poland. I liked that he fought the same (really good) opponent three times and his fight against Michael Jai White wasn't as good as Undisputed 2 or Accident Man, but was one of the best parts of the movies. Just like the first movie, takes that long have to be impressive even if you don't like it. The movie may not have ended on a cliffhanger, but it left room to imagine that there is the potential for another sequel. Overall, this isn't one of Scott Adkins better movies but it was more entertaining than some of his worst.

This is a one-shot movie!

This means it was shot on one continuous take from start to finish.

(Yes, potentially there could be hidden cuts, idk, but man the craft that goes to it is fantastic).

As far as action movie directing goes, this is as good as it gets. You don't get to have a more competently done approach to a one-shot movie.

Yes, there are a few things here and there that you might improve, but man - it's solid action, well directed, well crafted, well shot and mostly well played.

The female lead leaves much to be desired (in my view) but the rest of the cast do a fantastic job.

The main protagonist is likeable, competent and actually skilled. He takes punches here and there and needs to get resourceful and smart to defeat stronger opponents in large numbers.

This is a low budget action movie that is actually good and does not deserve the low rating it has at the moment.

Yes, it's not Titanic or LOTR, but it's in the realm of John Wick, Die Hard and Extraction.

I loved it.

The predecessor to this film, One Shot, was a unique experiment in action filmmaking. It seemed to be shot in one continuous sequence. It does not jump around in edited from location to location- it follows one linear path at a time. The stateside story of a terrorist transported by Scott Adkins, who is the linchpin to a terrorist plot around the State of the Union address is very engaging and cool. The story and acting are good. The action is unrelenting. The look and feel matches the first one. James Numm;s filmmaking works. Michael Jai White is a great addition to the film. He, like Adkins, is a always fun to watch on screen no matter the budget of the film.

What a waste of 98 minutes of my life I will never get back!!!!

What have I done, read a couple of reviews and it looked like I could watch this on a Saturday night... How wrong I was and why oh why did I keep watching after the first 30 minutes (apart from praying it would get better) I thought it was all gearing up to be somewhat of an ok movie, but no, it just stopped / ended, without an ending.

It left so many different situations / plots hanging without an ending / conclusion.

.... Please tell me this film has not been left like this to enable a Part 2? Please no!

I'm gobsmacked that others have given this a higher rating.

Adkins movies are commonly known for relative low budget flicks, and you cannot beat the Debt Collectors in that department.

However this movie has it all. Some good action scenes, some good actors, and the story itself reminds a bit on the movie "Unthinkable", which is a clear 10 although very much unheard of, because of the story. Some scenes even very similar.

Altogether I just wanted to give it a try and expected to watch maybe 20 minutes of it but watched it fully through. Very good movie.

The bad; sound is a bit off standard, the 'score' (music) a bit annoying, but the story makes up for it. I usually do not recommend movies, but this one is/should be surely a hit for action fans who like it a bit deeper.

Huge fan of Berenger, Adkins and White; but, this film was so poorly written and the non-stop action scenes were shot in such a way as to make the viewer a bit car sick. Too many plot holes and inconsistencies to count and a rather abrupt, unsatisfying ending that left me wishing I had spent the time doing anything else. The anticipated fight scene with White and Adkins was disappointingly weak. Poor writing, poor directing and none of these stars were allowed to show their full potential. These guys are usually less wooden and enjoyable, and so it is not a complete waste of your time if you like these actors; but, it could have been so much more. The audience deserved more and so did the actors. If you did not watch this one, you did not miss much.

This is a good effort with adkins and j.white who delivered the martial arts goods one more time in the big screen.

A solid action flick which is worth your time especially if u like adkins and j. White.

The plot is nice and the thriller ellement is high in this movie apart from the martial arts action scenes.

I just saw this flick and i already pre-ordered the dvd // blu ray for my video home collection.

The only flaw is the ending which resolved nothing but i guess there will be another sequel maybe to conclude the story once and for all and what happens with the team of the terrorists who threatened the high ranked politicians with death.

When you have a limited budget, you spend it on what the fans wants to see.

Action.

We want to see Scott Adkins' sweet moves. And if his buddy Michael J. White is in the same movie, by all means, let the dogs out.

What you shouldn't spend your time on is to make an artsy-fartsy "one shot" film.

Sure, there are one or two great movies out there who uses the single-shot gimmick. 1917 by Sam Mendes being one of them. But they are rare. They are rare because it forces all the boring stuff into the movie, because you can't just cut away from it. So we see people walking, talking, falling, mumbling and a lot of jazz hands.

Listen. When we see Scott Adkins and Michael J. White on the cover, and we get excited, it's because we're martial arts fans.

You know this! Show us martial arts and we're happy. Throw in a decent story and we're more than happy. Make it great like Boyka or Blood and Bone and we'll give you 10 on IMDB.

Adkins deserves some credit for relentlessly trying to keep his career afloat, against all odds, in the grand tradition of Van Damme and Seagel and Lundgren. Also nice to see Berenger and Jai White back in the saddle. However, that said, there are signs of desperation here. This is sort of a sequel to ONE SHOT, in a quantum universe where time is relative and nothing much happens between installments. Film students will especially appreciate the way every possible trick and hack is used to make a small budget seem bigger than it is. The small cast and static locale -- both telltales of B-moviemaking, are made to seem larger and more important than they actually are. Think Hamburger Helper, only for directors. However, at the end of the day, and in real time, it becomes obvious that world has moved on (in 2024, the Enemy really is inside the gates) and these guys have not. Rule of Thumb, any film where Adkins is not playing the most "perfect" Russian cage fighter on the planet is going to be forgettable. Ditto for any film where Jai White is playing the bad guy. (Blood & Bone still highly recommended for newbies.) ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))

From the first minutes to the last, THIS MOVIE IS FULL OF THRILL AND STRESS, the FIGHT SCENES in this movie are MORE AND MUCH BETTER THAN "ONE SHOT", but it is not good compared to Accident Man or other movies.

I didn't Like The first film (ONE SHOT), but ONE MORE SHOT is Better Than part 1.

Fight Scenes in this film isn't so good. But Fights in this film is better than ONE SHOT.

Fight Scenes little better than ONE SHOT.

Scott Adkins is better than another martial artist actor in this world. He deserve play in high budget films.

Accident Man and Accident Man hitman's holiday is better than this film.

Out of sensitivity, bad acting. The terrorist The terrorist spends his time crying with fear. The confusion makes no sense, very bad.

To many wicked carácter. Out of sense and just one person fighting with against an entire army.

There are scenes so bad that you hear a lot of bullets and see nothing. The handfuls go into the air.

It's not even good for watching on a boring night, it's better to sleep.

Think having to write a review for a bad movie is worse, I don't make it to 600 words.

I don't know what else to write, it's a bad script, worse acting and a waste of bullets and energy. Very big.

One More Shot

In my defence it was Sunday afternoon and I felt like some daft, brainless action but the words 'a Sky Original' should always be approached with caution.

A sequel I'm sure nobody asked for to a similarly micro-budgeted Brit action flick One Shot, starring Scott Adkins, the Lidl version of Jason Statham and centred around the 'single shot' approach, as briefly popularised by Sam Mendes in 1917.

The first one was "ok" - basically a first person shooter video game brought to live action - running round a series of bunkers in some 'black ops site' but the second one, still adhering - very unwisely - to the 'single shot' maxim shifts to what they attempt to convince us is Washington airport when it's screamingly obvious that it's Stansted, deserted for no doubt budgetary reasons.

Adkins is a decent action performer and there are a handful of well-choreographed hand to hand combat scenes in between endless shakycam running about, shooting and ducking, occasionally nipping out of shot to, oh I don't know, go to the loo or something. The one shot premise gives us intentional highlights like an extended scene of the main character ascending an escalator, or walking round a deserted airport. The whole thing is like a rejected plot for a series of 24 that was sent back with 'too hackneyed, try harder' written on it.

We get the unedifying spectacle of a desiccated Tom Berenger who is quite obviously being fed his lines through an earpiece, complete with unnatural gaps and pauses, like someone relaying the instructions to reset the burglar alarm after it's gone off.

Mercifully short, Sky presumably get some sort of tax break for churning out this sort of stuff.